Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:20:54 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Mustapha Ishak <email@example.com>
CC: Yungui Gong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Dr. Ishak,
I like very much your latest astro-ph/0504416 v1. May I ask a question in private?
Consider this: I look at my wristwatch and record an instant, t1. At some later time t2, say, t2 - t1 = 8 min, the spacetime will be expanded by the dark energy of X. I again look at my wristwatch and record an instant, t2 , and ask the following question:
Q: Where was/is X located at the two instants, t1 and t2 ?
If X were *physical* entity, like the Sun,
there would be no problem.
But it isn't. That's how X became "dark": it "lives" in an absolute reference frame. Its dynamics along the cosmological time (the coincidence problem) suggests an UNphysical now-at-a-distance absolute reference frame of X , because X covers all "inflating" points like a transcendental tachyon. Moreover, X cannot be a physical entity, since it is a *perfectly smooth* fluid,
I very much hope you'll help me with the question above. I already asked Dr. Yungui Gong (astro-ph/0405446 v5) a similar question, and hope to hear from him as well.
I will keep your feedback strictly private and confidential.
"Center" of The Universe
Dear Drs. Zeng and Gao,
I believe the [lambda] component [Ref. 1] is indeed vacuum energy,
It does move synchronously with ordinary matter on Hubble scales, only it can be "detected" only in some 'outside-STR-and-GR global frame', which is 'the center of the universe',
The implications for the Advanced LIGO can be read at
BTW the question you raised has a very long history, from the Hindu catechism: The One is an unbroken Circle (ring) with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere and the center is everywhere. There's nowhere where God is not.
[Ref. 1] Ding-fang
Zeng, Yi-hong Gao, An Ignored Assumption of [Lambda]CDM Cosmology and An
Old Question: Do We Live On The "Center" of The Universe? gr-qc/0505154
Note: I gave here some hints on the "dark" energy and the detection of gravitational waves (GWs) with the Advanced LIGO.
The idea that GWs could be somehow related to the so-called dark energy is not original; Bernard Schutz and Kip Thorne have speculated on it, as we can see from slide 18 of Bernard Schutz' talk "The inevitability of gravitational waves": "96% of the Universe is incapable of emitting light or other electromagnetic radiation, so GWs are our only window into what Kip Thorne calls the “dark side of the Universe”."
Note the poetry here: "GWs are our only window", and recall that theoretical physicists like Bernard Schutz usually refrain from poetry, unless they really don't know what they are talking about. But one issue about "GWs are our only window" is at least clear: (i) the "dark" energy of [X] should somehow "gravitate" in order to be detectable with LIGO, and (ii) [X] should be spanned over a finite region of space, as stressed by Bernard Schutz.
Now, suppose that [X] is not some custom-made, ad hoc postulated scalar field, but is a manifestation of the vacuum energy density. The merits of this idea is that it complies with the Occam's Razor and doesn't introduce new entities without exhausting the existing proposition, which is that the cosmological term [lambda] could be vacuum energy density, [X]. If so, [X] should "gravitate" within a finite region of space, to leave "our only window" open, correct?
But this is exactly what Mother Nature does not do. She has not left any 'open window' for real exposure of its "dark" energy of [X]. If we take the vacuum energy density, cut-off at Planck scale, to be 1094 g cm-3 -- which is roughly 10122 times larger than the present observation, of course -- then the cosmic microwave background radiation would have cooled below 3K in the first 10-41 s "after" the Big Bang, and expansion rate (Hubble parameter) would be about a factor of 1061 larger than that observed today (E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1990).
Obviously, this "window" is tightly closed for any observation with LIGO, be it Advanced or not.
But this is exactly this "window" which LIGO will try to detect. Why? Because the "dark" energy of [X] constitutes nearly 73 per cent of the stuff in the universe, while Bernard Schutz and Kip Thorne can talk only about 4 per cent from the same universe: 3.6 % intergalactic gas and 0.4% stars, like the readers of these lines.
LIGO cannot possibly bypass measuring the "dark" energy of [X]. It is 18 times more than the known stuff in the universe. Hence the gravitational energy needed to trigger an event detected with LIGO is inevitably dominated by the "dark" energy. Only Bernard Schutz and Kip Thorne know nothing about it, and can only use poetry. Even if they try to avoid the crucial problem of the non-tensorial nature of gravitational energy, by offering some poetic analogies from electromagnetism, the remaining "dark" energy is 18 times more. It will prevail. It cannot be avoided. No way.
Mother Nature has not left this window open for direct physical interactions. It would have killed the universe. Hence Bernard Schutz and Kip Thorne wouldn't have had the chance to waste billions of euro and dollars for chasing GRs with LIGO, LISA, and The Big Bang Observer. Recall that physicists talk about "sensitivity improvements" and "noise reductions" since late 1960s, after the first failure (Joseph Weber) to detect GWs.
Should you prefer math instead of the "window" poetry, see the list of existing and proposed GWs detectors here, and try to calculate the required "sensitivity" and "noise reduction" of The Advanced LIGO for detecting the "dark" force that expands the metric of spacetime with constant acceleration. To begin with, you may need to suggest some kind of action and some sort of symmetries that could explain the cancellation of all but one part in 10122, then apply the Bianchi identity to ensure the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the matter energy momentum tensor, but don't forget that this whole recipe applies only to some isolated system, after Tullio Levi-Civita. Then you will have to incorporate the dynamic fine tuning and the whole cold dark matter, to reach what Kip Thorne calls the “dark side of the Universe” (poetically, of course). More math challenges here.
Aren't we missing something in our current understanding of the nature of gravity, as hinted by Richard Feynman? Recall his famous question: "Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system?" He was an honest physicist, and could not accept the lack of reality (Wirklichkeit) in the current theory of gravity. Neither could Max von Laue, Erwin Schrödinger, nor Albert Einstein. Perhaps only the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) are happy with the absence of reality (Wirklichkeit), but are they honest (ehrlich)? They should be, since they consume a lot of cash. Billions.
But what is this "window" poetry all about? Well, some people say it is about 'the center of an unbroken Circle (ring) with no circumference', as depicted with the Z axis here. Physically, it 'springs out' of the infinitesimal, hence looks like a "point". It is absolutely everywhere, being the "center" of the universe [Ref. 1] and the source of its "dark" stuff.
I believe all this "dark" stuff is
an effect of the
Holon. It produces real
physical effects in the
human brain too,
only neuroscientists would never speculate that 96 per cent from our brains
are in the form of some "dark" computer or “dark side of the brain”, nor
would they suggest to detect "the speed of
thought" with LIGO, LISA, or The Big Bang Observer.